We will be doing a live Q&A in the coming few days insha'Allah- if you have any questions related to the topic in the video, please post them as a reply to this comment. Thank you and Eid Mubarak.
Abu Layth specifically attacked the hadith of solomon visiting his 90+ wives in one night. Layth found it inconceivable that solomon purposefully didn't say inshallah after his companion told him to since he is a prophet. Hence layth rejects it. How should we deal with this?
Thank you Sunni Defense, i have added this video reply, to my responses to Abu Layth attack on Sahi Bukhari. I have edited also and corrected my first point argument refuting Musa being naked. Please read here: m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=548137005619704&id=100012702279487
@mr thompson m . Nope. He was not caught on porn. He did not agree with the police. He was helping his friend in finding his kids who were snatched away in a family dispute , something like that. I guess you are one of the low Muslims Slandering those who don't agree with you
This is a very succinct yet thorough response to the many flimsy allegations made about the veracity of Sahih al-Bukhari. I recommend everyone watch it and share it.
Faried began his opening statement w/a complete lie. Mufti has never said to disregard bukhari's manuscript entirely. He actually says the opposite of bukhari, of him being a great man and alum. It's obvious faried is counting on his fan base to never do actual research for themselves.
And your talking out your arse. He is clearly from his videos doing his best to cast doubt on this hadith book and on great scholars like Al Amash. Shame on you for supporting such an individual.
@@redx11x yes but he never said to disregard it entirely. He simply said to question the so called authenticity of some Hadith with Bukhari because they disrespect our prophet.
@@lap19 watch his videos, there is actually a video which shows all his deviant opinions. In regards to the hadith in Bukari that insult our Nabi(saw) quote it if you are truthful. There is no hadith that insults our Nabi(saw) in Bukari
@@tisko7188 as i said to the guy above, quote the hadith that are fabricated, or are the hadith not to your personal taste? And please make sure you know the Arabic of the hadith so there is no misunderstanding.
This guy is still dancing.. you skip all the main points.. youare talking about ppl way after .. let's talk about contemporaries or before Faraybi. Also Abu Layth is not saying it's completely wrong, he said that there are gaps. Some of the chains are wrong as well, or chains with unreliable ppl in them. Why don't you address the points one by one?
Imām Al-Shāfi’ī said: Whenever any people of desires (heretics) came to Mālik he would say to them, “As for me, I am upon clarity as regards my religion. As for you, you are a doubter, go and argue with another doubter like yourself.” Al-Dhahbī in Siyar A’lām Al-Nubalā’ under the biography of Imām Mālik.
Salam you did a good job in proving Abu layth wrong in terms of there’s more than one person passing on these narrations rather than it being al faradhi. However, he mentioned a bunch of Hadith which are very questionable but you guys didn’t discuss this.
im not trying to take any sides here ! but lets be honest the point of Mufti Abu layth was not that we should stay away from the saheeh but to just give a reminder that Imam Bukhari was a great muhadith but only a human being and his copy is just like any other historical texts containing discrepancies and it should not be given a divine status !
Habsab That doesn’t appear to be his point. If it was, he could just say that. Instead he tries, at every possible opportunity, to attack the Sunnah and traditional scholarship to cast doubts. His ultimate aim appears to be to try to debase the fundamentals of Ahlus Sunnah and bring people round to his warped way of thinking. There are serious questions over his motivations. So it’s important that TSD provides a scholarly and academic response. I am questioning AL’s intentions here but I’m willing to concede that I can’t open up his heart to look inside. Only Allah knows. And we ask that Allah guides both us and him.
@@azadajk7128 actually that was his point. Mufti said bukhari was a great man and alum & he said we absolutely should take from and use bukhari, but the divine status it gets sometimes should be questioned.
de Nobody (serious) has ever said it is 100% authentic or that Imam Bukhari is infallible or that he has never made mistakes. The whole purpose of scrutinising the work and providing a commentary on it is, at least in part, to check its veracity and authenticity. Many great scholars of the past have engaged in this activity. My point has more to do with AL’s pattern of behaviour. It appears to me that he is deliberately and purposefully looking to attack the Sunnah and the traditional scholarship concerning it. Like I said, I cannot look inside his heart but his aims also seem sinister. The fact that he seems to go out of his way to court controversy doesn’t help his case either. AL has also had connections with the Quilliam Foundation, which he apparently denounced very quickly - allegedly once he became aware of what they actually stood for. At the same time however, some of his speech touches dangerously close to the “reformist” views in the West (whilst I accept that he hasn’t actually “gone there” explicitly, as far as I am aware - he did say that “we need an Islam that emanates from the West” or words to that effect). Incidentally, this is the kind of garbage that flows from the mouths of the founders of the Quilliam Foundation. At every opportunity, he appears to be looking to appeal to people’s whims and desires rather than the affirming the Sunnah. He goes out of his way to mock senior scholars and other Da’ees but tries to simultaneously claim that he has nothing but respect for these people. I’m nobody special and to my untrained mind, he looks to be deliberately preying on those with a weak imaan and trying to sow doubts and/or to mislead people. All in all, given there are so many issues with what he says, it would seem he is best avoided. With that said, I don’t think it’s right for people to attack him though - the best strategy is to allow brothers like TSD to methodically dismantle what he says in an academic way. The rest of us should not pay him any attention. He will eventually wither away, unless he reforms - for falsehood will always perish and the truth shall always prevail. Allah knows best. May Allah guide us all to the truth.
urdominus You’ve not really bought anything new to the discussion. I already dealt with that point in my initial response. AL likes to use slippery language - say one thing, then go on to do or say lots of other things which raise questions over his true intention. At least to anyone with a skeptical or enquiring mind.
"We can determine a persons reliability by examining whether his narrations are corroborated with other narrators". So if a liar had the attribute of actually also narrating a lot of authentic ahadiith, you would deem him as reliable? Seems like a faulty method. Furthermore this could actually just be exploited. A person with malicious intent could narrate narrations that he knew were sahih and that people considered sahih and that were in circulation to boost is rank in order to just make up ahadiith later on and make people accept them based upon his previous decievement of trying to appear reliable by what he corroborated. What a weak methodology you subscribe to. Really this is your way of trying to convince people that you can vouch for a persons reliability even though you are 200 years apart? This is ridiculous.
Actually that's not how it works in reality. A liar wouldn't spend all his time in narrating sahih things just to narrate few hadiths that have no political or ideological interests. Let me give an example. Abu huraira narrated more than 400 different reports. Only in 9 reports he is not corroborated. But those 9 reports have no political or ideological interests for Abu huraira. If a narrator who is corroborated reports some uncorroborated authentic reports which affect the fundamental theology of Islam, he is not corroborated. For example: if someone were to affirm shia imamah.
@@cowdyimammurrahtabari973 Listen, the whole hadith methodology is a subjective methodology that has lots of disagreement between different scholars of hadith. Not only do they differ in which specific ahadiith they consider sahih or not, but they also differ in the methodology they feel like is better to use. This is a highly questionable practice given the weight and importance you give to things you find in these ahadiiths. This tradition is a joke.
@@AbuDurum There are disputes. But the agreement overwhelm the disputes. If hadiths aren't reliable, what religious information is reliable and which religion is reliable? I don't know if you're a muslim, Christian or aitheist, but I am going to mention some religions. NT has nine authors. James and Jude don't give us any relevant information. Luke depends on mark. Both Paul and Mark depends on peter. The Christians themselves are skeptical about the attribution of Matthew and Matthew also depends on mark. In other words, there are only two real authors. John and Peter. And we only know about the life of James to some extent other than them and he died before any book was written. As for other disciples, we don't even know their death year and place. That's how ignored they were. Meaning we don't know if they opposed peter or john. We can't even know if they came to know about their beliefs. There are other problem but this problem is enough bad. As for OT books, we have to rely upon rabbies who came many centuries later about the attribution and compilation and they didn't give any information about their sources. In other words, they didn't give any chains. We have to depend upon people and their chains for Quran. One can argue the Quran is an invention by uthman or other caliphs using your logic. If you're an aitheist, there's no point for you to waste time in these matters since you don't believe in God and heaven and hell. Go and rape a girl. You don't have any moral standards if you're an aitheist. There are many hadiths books and each give different chains and various chains. Some chains of one book match the chains of another book and most other chains match the chains of the rest of the books and some are exclusive to one book. So you have multiple different authors gaining their information from multiple different sources through multiple different paths. It would be unreasonable to think all of them are unreliable. If you doubt the authors, they are many. If you doubt their teachers, they are even more. If you doubt the teachers of their teachers and the companions of the prophet, they are also many. Which generation do you doubt? Which one do you think conspired? I would rather take the apparent approach and say they are reliable. And I mentioned why Abu huraira shouldn't be considered a forger. Other narrators from the companions and later ones are similar.
I'm trying to understand something. I am not a fan of alot of Abu layths views but if he is a deviant that can be destroyed in two minutes or less. Why are all the salafis running away. Sunni defence nice job on the video but Abu layth has challenged you to go face to face with him and to all who are against him. So why dont you go to him. You can give an excuse that he is such a deviant that he's not a bother. But you were willing to make several videos against him. You were willing to edit short clips from him q and a sessions and refute him. You were willing to challenge the shia rafidi channel, you were willing to challenge tawhidi etc. So if Abu layth is this monumental deviants who lies and changes text and has no knowledge on islam, then why dont you go to him and prove him wrong. I have seen your videos against him and his responses and objectively speakijng he seems to have demonated you guys, minus this video, where I feel you have now got the upper hand. I've watched you guys lie throughout this series against him aswell. At first I believed you guys but by doing some research it was very obvious that you were lying, e.g you said malm didn't know that suliaman al a mash and a mash was the same person where doing a little research he actually said sulaiman al a mash the week prior and the video against him was the clip the following week where he had a slip of a toung. Maybe malm deserves to be slandered because he insults people imams and his fellow Muslims so badly, so I'm willing to turn a blind eye to you guys for doing that. So to end this, slander of one another, please can you both farid and Sunni defence got to malm and prove him wrong or be proved wrong. Because I was a fan of you guys but now it come to a point where my iman has sanked to the floor because m seeing a channel which a liked stoop so low.
Naeem Khan Lets be honest if you weren’t a fan you wouldn’t watch videos exposing him and make multiple comments claiming that these brothers are hiding from debating him and not even make one comment regarding the content mentioned in such videos
@@Umar-kg1zb look a fan or not but why when abu layth invite him for debate he doesn't go. They only mentioned about some hadith. Please watch the both sides.
Thanks for putting together this excellent, and easy to understand summary. Although less than 30 minutes, it packs in a lot of information and analysis.
Now thats strawman fallacy. Mufti does not say that throw the whole Bukhari. He questioned the idea that Bukhari is the most authentic book after Quran and with all these justifications, the question still remains... Is Bukhari that much reliable as these guys want to project. And no, you cannot compare mistakes in Bukhari manuscripts with mistakes in Quranic manuscripts for the simple reason that there has always been a culture of memorization of Quran..
What I can't understand is that why did Allah had to send so many prophet's at different times with the same message again and again? Was it not because after the prophet passed, the message got diluted and eventually distorted by those who are against the rule of Allah? Until we get to Muhammad s.a.w who brought the Qur'an and which is preserved for all time and for all people as explicitly stated by Allah himself. Why then do we take hadith books beside Qur'an and defend it with the same veracity as the Qur'an when history itself shows that the message was not preserved, due to the comings of prophet's again and again(from Adam as until Muhammad s.a.w) with the haq? Allah knows best but due to this very matter I find it hard to take hadith books at face value and find it hard to believe in them especially the controversial narrations that are in them. Anyone who can enlighten me so as to better understand and be on haq regarding this issue? Jajak Allah Khair.
here are some verses about obeying the prophet Muhammad (may peace be upon him), so you cannot absolutely deny that we are commanded to obey him 1) "Say Obey Allah and the Messenger. But if they turn away, then Allah does not like the disbelievers" [Quran 3:32] 2) "And whoso obey Allah and the Messenger (Muhammad) then they will be in the company of those on whom Allah has bestowed His Grace, of the Prophets, the Siddiqun (those followers of the Prophets who were first and foremost to believe in them, like Abu Bakr As-Siddiq the martyrs, and the righteous. And how excellent these companions are!" [Quran 4:69] 3) "They ask you (O Muhammad)about the spoils of war. Say: “The spoils are for Allah and the Messenger.” So fear Allah and adjust all matters of difference among you, and obey Allah and His Messenger (Muhammad), if you are believers" [Quran 8:1] 4) "O you who believe! Obey Allah and His Messenger, and turn not away from him (i.e. Messenger Muhammad) while you are hearing" [Quran 8:20] 5) "The believers, men and women, are Auliya’ (helpers, supporters, friends, protectors) of one another; they enjoin (on the people) Al-Ma’ruf (i.e. Islamic Monotheism and all that Islam orders one to do), and forbid (people) from Al-Munkar (i.e. polytheism and disbelief of all kinds, and all that Islam has forbidden); they perform As-Salat (Iqamat-as-Salat), and give the Zakat, and obey Allah and His Messenger. Allah will have His Mercy on them. Surely Allah is All-Mighty, All-Wise"[Quran 9:71] 6) "He who obeys the Messenger has indeed obeyed Allah, but he who turns away, then we have not sent you as a watcher over them" [Quran 4:80]
so at this point, the fact that we (muslims) are commanded to obey the messenger (may peace be upon him) is pretty much heavily established in the quran. why would the quran tell us multiple times that we need to obey him (may peace be upon him)? how would we (the ummah) obey him (may peace be upon him)? in order to obey him (may peace be upon him), we would need to know his teachings in the first place, wouldn't we? so that leads us to the hadith, the actions and sayings of the prophet Muhammad (may peace be upon him). now, my issue with people who only read from the quran and not the hadith is the following verse: "O you who believe! Obey Allah and obey the Messenger (Muhammad, pbuh), and those of you (Muslims) who are in authority. (And) if you differ in anything amongst yourselves, refer it to Allah and His Messenger if you believe in Allah and in the Last Day. That is better and more suitable for final determination" [Quran 4:59] this verse tells us clearly that we refer to Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَتَعَالَىٰ) and the prophet Muhammad (may peace be upon him) when we differ amongst ourselves. how do we refer to Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَتَعَالَىٰ)? we use the quran how do we refer to the prophet Muhammad (may peace be upon him)? through his teachings. and let me emphasise again, his teachings is in the Hadiths this verse also points out that we can't just freely determine what each verse means just like that. we need to understand the verses. and so, wouldn't it make sense to refer to both the quran and hadith seeing the prophet Muhammad (may peace be upon him) is the prophet who preached these verses to us? if we ONLY used quran, we wouldn't be referring to the prophet Muhammad (may peace be upon him) at all for any of the verses, and would end up freely interpreting the verses. how do you expect do understand the context of the verses without the hadith in the first place?
to top all this up, the quran says that the prophet Muhammad (may peace be upon him) preaches to us what is halal and haram in this verse: "Those who follow the Messenger, the unlettered prophet, whom they find written in what they have of the Torah and the Gospel, who enjoins upon them what is right and forbids them what is wrong and makes lawful for them the good things and prohibits for them the evil and relieves them of their burden and the shackles which were upon them. So they who have believed in him, honored him, supported him and followed the light which was sent down with him - it is those who will be the successful" [Quran 7:157] how do you know what the prophet Muhammad (may peace be upon him) has revealed what is haram and halal? through his teachings. to further prove that the prophet Muhammad (may peace be upon him) was sent to explain the quran is in these verses: "With clear signs and Books (We sent the Messengers). And We have also sent down unto you (O Muhammad SAW) the reminder and the advice (the Quran), that you may explain clearly to men what is sent down to them, and that they may give thought" [Quran 16:44] what do you think this verse means when it says "explain clearly to men what is sent down to them, and that they may give thought"???? it can't get anymore clear than this. furthermore: "And We have not sent down the Book (the Quran) to you (O Muhammad SAW), except that you may explain clearly unto them those things in which they differ, and (as) a guidance and a mercy for a folk who believe" [Quran 16:64]
so this leads me to a question: WHERE do you expect to see the teachings of the prophet Muhammad (may peace be upon him)??? the quran is the word of ALLAH (سُبْحَانَهُ وَتَعَالَىٰ), and the hadith is the actions and sayings of the PROPHET MUHAMMAD (may peace be upon him)!!! fr ask urself, if we don't need to know the teachings of the prophet Muhammad (may peace be upon him), then why didn't Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَتَعَالَىٰ) just give the whole quran to those arabs and tell them that's all they need to understand the quran? why was the quran revealed over 23 years, with the prophet Muhammad (may peace be upon him) explaining it???
Finished watching the video. Can you please make another video with some more examples. It was so heart warming seeing how every mistake can be detected
The argument is incorrect.... because no one ever claimed that the bukhari we have today is completely unreliable......What mufti claimed is that there are errors in the book so we need to treat bukhari just like other books of ahadith...... And mufti covered it in much more detail...and the edition you are mentioning it has 1200 ahadith only....which is not even close to the bukhari we have today ...so it proves no point nor does it support your theory anyway..... If you have watched Mufti's video about the #bukharigate and you are saying all this after watching that, then you have lost honour in my eyes because of manipulating and fabricating things and if you have not watched them yet, then you are just humiliating yourself.... And next time while making a video like this, introduce yourself and mention your credentials, in the videos that are out of context for the common people, that will take you farther in life.
Look they didn't watch mufti and misinterpret on accident. It was done intentionally to validate their despise for mufti. Even their point about fraberi, they saying "see it wasn't 200 years before someone couches for him, it's actually just over 100" lol. Mufti's whole point was no one that met this guy vouched for him. What about the 90,000 person claim from fraberi??
This is the poorest reply I've ever seen, you guys embarrassed yourselves with this. but the main Question is that WHY are you people defending the entire Bukhari altogether, no-one says to throw the entire Bukhari into the dustbin, but rather revise it check the problematic ahadeeths in it and there is many. on the other hand Bukhari does contain some Sahih Ahadeeth, and needs to be followed. you say Quran contained errors just so you can make an argument for your case (18:30), you guys are hard to understand you make Islam difficult and many people distance themselves from their deen because of people like you.
They didn't say the Quran contained errors, he said their will be textual mistakes because humans are writing it. But that doesn't mean that the Quran is unreliable. We know the Quran is reliable because Allah said so and we have so many Quran to look at to know that the scribe messed up.
Couldn’t agree more with this statement. They try to compare Quran and Hadith all the time when Quran and Hadith are two completely different things. One is divine revelation and the other are a bunch of fabricator stories. Yes there are some authentic Hadith but these people will never question the fabricated ones.
@@lap19 what is my argument? I was trying to help the brother here understand that they didn’t say the Quran had mistakes, it just has scribal errors in that are accounted for when people memorize and when they compare it to the millions of other copies. People memorize Hadith chains as well too. It’s not as prevalent, but how else do you think we got these compilations of Hadith like the sahihtayn and the muwatta and so on?
This video is extremely fallacious. You guys are arguing against a strawman when you say that we shouldn't reject Bukhari entirely. MAL never said that. You also didn't even address all of MAL's points or actually proved that Farabri is reliable and has been vouched for by someone who actually knew him. What a disappointment.
Eid Mubarak ya ikhwa!!! As always w great plasure I watched this vid' and any work thats presented by the team, I watch, I Feel's the sincerity, so long's the audio's of decent quality, I'm in, i@ Maqbul
Bukhari is man made and not from Allah. To say this book is 100% authentic is ridiculous. It has potential for mistakes like any other religious book except for Quran which is divine revelation.
Salafis are obligated to accept every Hadith from Bukhari without exception. This commitment stems from their departure from established Madhabs, opting instead to reinterpret Fiqh based on Bukhari's teachings. Any rejection of even a single Hadith from Bukhara undermines their entire ideology.
@@karimmezghiche9921 But only Salafi’s take fiqh from Bukhari the other madhabs don’t do that. They were established before Bukhari was compiled. For example Hanafi’s don’t do Rafal Yadain even though there’s a Hadith in Bukhari reporting the Prophet performed it.
@@Flyingtoohardtofly This is false, all schools take into consideration Sahih Al-Bukhari, just because the schools were founded before the book was made doesn't mean that the hadiths that are in it did not exist before. Al-Bukhari did not make up the hadiths in his Sahih from his mind you know, they were widely known even before his time. He just compiled them. Yes the Hanafis do not raise their hands, but that is not because they reject the hadiths that are in Sahih Al-Bukhari. It is because they consider them to have been abrogated, but they still accept the hadiths as authentic. All Sunnis without exception accept all hadiths in Sahih Al-Bukhari.
The analogy of editions to authors and their editions is absolutely false in my honest opinion. Editions are generally written by the same author and thats authentic. If there are different editions of lets say aristotle by someone who lived centuries after him are completely problematic and has to be seriously reviewed and checked with the original. Bad analogy.
Hi I do not reject hadith but watching this video and i found it to be very very weak. Your admitting the ALL of sahih bukhari goes through just one man, farabri. WOW. I have looked into this and I am shocked that if you go to any scholar today and ask him his chain of sahih bukhari ALL go back through one man farabri. The question is why the the scholars all around the world chain goes back through one man farabri? Your telling me that there is no other chain in existence that does NOT go through farabri ? We have to stop saying the most authentic man made preservation in the world. Love and peace to you all!
@@maryammuslimah7660 You think Shia hadith books are 100% authentic? Your saying there are NO mistakes and contradictions in Shia hadith books? Love and peace to you all!
@@ALIHussain-mf4ez No. Only the books today go back to Farabi. In earlier times, there were other books which didn't go through Farabi. The reason very book today goes through Farabi is because that's how it works.
Jazakumullah khaiyran Jaza and I did finished watching the video, thanks for the lending contributions. I have few questions: 1. In some narration of Sahih al-Bukhari, we read expression like " قال لی " meaning 'person so and so said to me' as opposed to the use of "حدثنا " meaning 'narrated to us'. What is the intent of making this distinction? Does this imply that there are certain collections that meets the criteria of authenticity of these works and there are some which does not? If this is the position, who set these criteria, Bukhari himself or the transmitters themselves? How then could categorically state that everything is authentic when we find such distinction in the collections? 2. What do make of the Hadith in which Abu Bakra is one of the narrator, with the Hadith saying something about women leadership? What about the Hadith that says women are among of the three things that brings a bad omen?
1)Both are sahih. 2)a)The Quran said men are qawwam over women. b)Women are "bad omen" in the sense that there is a good chance they will lead to fitnah because of sexual attraction from the men side. Note : There is no real bad omen. But there is "bad omen" with quotation marks.
@Brother Anon You're wrong. Men being Qawwamoon does not make women less equal. It espouses upon the responsibilities vested on the shoulders of men when it comes to the family. Men are privileged by Allah as head of the household because they have been specifically molded by the Maker to shoulder such responsibilities. The verse on financial documentation of a debt is poorly understood by you: the verse in question relates the heavy responsibility of testifying to a loan contract by an individual and not in a competent court. Such heavy responsibility is not suited for the nature of women. It is by no means an indication that her status is lower to than of man. Ibn Taimiyah and Ibn Qayyim shared the same view (Turuq-ul-Hukmiyya fi Siyasati-s-Shari'eyah). Having said that do you still maintain the same position that it is the so-called "modern day ideologies" that may have influenced the two Sheikh's for maintaining that based on the Surah 2:283 and the hadith that is poorly understood, not minding the chains of transmission, that those Nas does not in anyway substantiate the idea that women's status are less compared to men?
Just to add... you guys shd really watch MAL'S hour long video He shows how all these claims you're making of Ibn Sakan/Baaji/Samani etc. MAL actually shows pages and references explainig all these to be problematic. MAL also shows theres no reference of Baji in his own works and this is quoted by any major scholar. MAL also shows that Samanis book doesnt seem to have Farabri in it. MAL also shows Samanis sons book in his video speaking abt Farabri and how there is no tautheeq of him. the secondary book that u state Ifadah MAL shows in his video how he is misrepresenting facts he shows him misleading people abt Farabri having Bukharis actual handwritten book. MAL also mentions the manuscript differences aint just small names but entire chains disagreeing and even missing. MAL also mentions that Jiyani's manuscript had poor handwriting? He also mentions that his student Sadaah has a different version from Jiyani?? Once again Please RESPOND to MAL'S actual video. Otherwise anybody watching this then watching MAL'S video will clearly see that his points are much stronger.
We did not respond to all of Abu Layth's points. Some are just absurd. For example, Abu Layth himself often quotes opinions from scholars that cannot be found in their works. So, this is a double standard. Furthermore, Al-Jayyani had manuscripts of Al-Bukhari through Ibn Al-Sakan, Al-Aseeli, Al-Qabsi, Abu Thar, Al-Nasafi, and others. Did they ALL have bad handwriting? Please stop accepting his statements without evidences. This man has openly lied to his audience on several occasions. This video simply refutes the main accusations that were made. Refer to the description above.
This is classic example of he said/she said. I watched Mufti's video and he said that Ali Dawah was unprepared for their debate and was afraid of recording their debate and asked him to not record. Mufti has a sense of humor and he has a tendency of making jokes. There is nothing wrong with humor. Many Sahaba had a sense of humor too. If only you learn your history....
@The Sunni Defense Please can you cut Bro Farid addressing the issue of AL in last week’s live chat/stream from approximately 1h06 so there is a small clip just on that point.
MashaAllah excellent video, the opponents are clearly burning in rage. They have nothing left expect making foolish and unacademic arguments out of arrogance. It’s hard for them to accept that their arguments were destroyed in an academic manner.
eatingeatingeating Firstly stop acting like an idiot by comparing bible which allegedly is a divinely revealed book by God with a hadeeth book. Secondly, it seems you aren’t aware that abulayth when started off with attacking some ahadeeth from Bukhari, tsn have a jawbreaking response proving him to be a zindeeq. When MAL realized his stupidity , he realized that Sunni scholars have already replied to all the shubuhat raised by hadeeth rejectors which they use from Bukhari, hence to save himself from humiliation MAL thought to go next level, and attacked the attribution of Sahih Bukhari which we have to imam Bukhari. But unfortunately he was made to taste the dust even in this issue.
سير أعلام النبلاء لشمس الدين الذهبي » الطبقة الثامنة عشر » الفربري المحدث الثقة العالم أبو عبد الله محمد بن يوسف بن مطر بن صالح بن بشر الفربري ، راوي " الجامع الصحيح " عن أبي عبد الله البخاري ، سمعه منه بفربر مرتين . ............... أرخ مولده أبو بكر السمعاني في " أماليه " وقال : كان ثقة ورعا. Biography of the nobles Al-Muhaddith the trustworthy, the scholar Abu Abdullah Muhammad bin Yusuf bin Matar bin Saleh bin Beshr al-Farbari, narrator of al-Jamaâ al-Saheeh from Abu Abdullah al-Bukhari, which he Hear it from him twice at Farbar. ................................ Abu Bakr al-Sama'ani, date his birth in in his "Amali", and said: He was trustworthy and devout.
Oh i see. So everyone who questions any kind of authenticity of any kithab alhadith is a dajjal or a zindheek. Awesome. Never ever expected this kind of typical Christian type of negation and damning of people as argument. Sad to see learned Muslims like you brothers have gone to that level of the lowest gutter. When i started watching this video i thought you guys were decent people. I have seen you as well. I dont know who you are addressing and your textual criticism is kind of good. Its good to know you are using some kind of critical method to texts. But its not so nice to see your damning of other people, whoever they are. In the future, if i see your faces ever again i will listen but will only do so knowing how vile you guys really are inside. Alaikumussalaam.
What an ignorant comment. Abu Layth is a evildoer for numerous reasons. He has misguided countless people with invalid fatawa. There is consensus on certain things that are Haram and he tells his followers they are permissible. There’s literally a whole compilation of this buffoon going against Islam. He’s just another progressive fake imam
For AL and his ilk who keep referring to TSD as “Salafi Defense” (how original 😂... and incidentally the same little dig that the Shi’a try to have at TSD)... Here is Imam Nāsir ud-Dīn Al-Albani, a Sheikh pretty much universally accepted by so-called “Salafis” discussing weak Hadith in Bukhari: th-cam.com/video/w46-M1XqsUQ/w-d-xo.html Nobody at TSD to the best of my knowledge (or any Sunni of knowledge for that matter) has ever claimed Bukhari to be infallible or divine revelation. This is just a weak straw man argument advanced by the likes of AL to support their unfounded attacks on the Sunnah. The clip from Imam Al Albani proves that it is possible to have a reasoned and rational critique of Bukhari in accordance with the accepted principles of Ahlus Sunnah. It does not support AL’s mockery of the religion or his unfounded attacks on Bukhari to support his warped reformist views, that appear to be grounded in modern western liberal thinking rather than Al Islam.
They used to write hadith, some used to memorize hadith and some used to write in their personal copies and they used to share it with their relatives like we have the Abdullah bin Amr bin Al-As'. We still have those manuscripts alongside we have the same ahadith with longer isanid (chain of narrations) which are found in later books like Kutub As-Sittah (6 books of ahadith) and others. So the argument itself is dosen't make any sense. Hence, the argument is proven to be incorrect. Allahu A'alam!
@@mistercach I asked where is it in the Quran. The main argument for Quran only Muslims is that we only need Quran and nothing else. But if you're going to rely on others for prayer, what argument do you have as a hadith rejector?
@@cowdyimammurrahtabari973 who said i was a hadith rejector? A lot of hadith make no sense and its pushing people away from Allah and Islam it used to be the other way around. The hadith has brought division in and weakness in islam that's wy the non believers rule over our religion all muslims are my brothers and sisters Sunni shia etc... we began as 1 and ended in 70 parts battling each other this is not wat our prophet intended you see the picture now maybe for you are the hadith more important than the Koran but for me its the Koran that is more important im always sceptical about hadith but not all of them.
Salaam Why are you sunni defence scared of have a debate with mufti abu layth? The only reason I can think of is that you will get exposed and doing this is easier for you.
@@josefineforsberg5807 stupid comment. If he’s such a fool then why even make a refutation? He’s clearly a threat to these guys and talks sense. Debate the guy if you think he’s a fool
Hi Jesus .... what? Mufti Abu Layth has not attacked all hadith but has asked for the evidence to show how the Sahih Bukhari collection goes back to Sahih Bukhari. There is nothing deviant about this question and only a deviant group will take offence in such a question.
We will be doing a live Q&A in the coming few days insha'Allah- if you have any questions related to the topic in the video, please post them as a reply to this comment. Thank you and Eid Mubarak.
Viva Palestina ("Long live Palestine")
It would be nice, if you had an open discussion on whatsapp or telegram group
Abu Layth specifically attacked the hadith of solomon visiting his 90+ wives in one night. Layth found it inconceivable that solomon purposefully didn't say inshallah after his companion told him to since he is a prophet. Hence layth rejects it.
How should we deal with this?
Thank you Sunni Defense, i have added this video reply, to my responses to Abu Layth attack on Sahi Bukhari. I have edited also and corrected my first point argument refuting Musa being naked. Please read here:
m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=548137005619704&id=100012702279487
@mr thompson m . Nope. He was not caught on porn.
He did not agree with the police. He was helping his friend in finding his kids who were snatched away in a family dispute , something like that.
I guess you are one of the low Muslims Slandering those who don't agree with you
This is a very succinct yet thorough response to the many flimsy allegations made about the veracity of Sahih al-Bukhari. I recommend everyone watch it and share it.
You still didn't account for the missing 100 years after Al Farabari. Thus, we all agree he has no contemporary vouchement.
Right.
You guys wouldn’t dare to go on mindtrap with Mufti to discuss the matter. Dr. Abdul Majid tried last week and failed miserably.
Faried began his opening statement w/a complete lie. Mufti has never said to disregard bukhari's manuscript entirely. He actually says the opposite of bukhari, of him being a great man and alum. It's obvious faried is counting on his fan base to never do actual research for themselves.
And your talking out your arse. He is clearly from his videos doing his best to cast doubt on this hadith book and on great scholars like Al Amash. Shame on you for supporting such an individual.
@@redx11x yes but he never said to disregard it entirely. He simply said to question the so called authenticity of some Hadith with Bukhari because they disrespect our prophet.
@@lap19 watch his videos, there is actually a video which shows all his deviant opinions. In regards to the hadith in Bukari that insult our Nabi(saw) quote it if you are truthful. There is no hadith that insults our Nabi(saw) in Bukari
@@redx11x please read the book the criminals of islam
@@tisko7188 as i said to the guy above, quote the hadith that are fabricated, or are the hadith not to your personal taste? And please make sure you know the Arabic of the hadith so there is no misunderstanding.
This guy is still dancing.. you skip all the main points.. youare talking about ppl way after .. let's talk about contemporaries or before Faraybi. Also Abu Layth is not saying it's completely wrong, he said that there are gaps. Some of the chains are wrong as well, or chains with unreliable ppl in them. Why don't you address the points one by one?
Eid Mubarak brothers and sisters. May you all have blessed Eid
Ameen ya raabil alameen
Ameen
Imām Al-Shāfi’ī said:
Whenever any people of desires (heretics) came to Mālik he would say to them, “As for me, I am upon clarity as regards my religion. As for you, you are a doubter, go and argue with another doubter like yourself.”
Al-Dhahbī in Siyar A’lām Al-Nubalā’ under the biography of Imām Mālik.
I'm going to use that from now on
Salam you did a good job in proving Abu layth wrong in terms of there’s more than one person passing on these narrations rather than it being al faradhi. However, he mentioned a bunch of Hadith which are very questionable but you guys didn’t discuss this.
im not trying to take any sides here ! but lets be honest the point of Mufti Abu layth was not that we should stay away from the saheeh but to just give a reminder that Imam Bukhari was a great muhadith but only a human being and his copy is just like any other historical texts containing discrepancies and it should not be given a divine status !
Habsab That doesn’t appear to be his point. If it was, he could just say that. Instead he tries, at every possible opportunity, to attack the Sunnah and traditional scholarship to cast doubts. His ultimate aim appears to be to try to debase the fundamentals of Ahlus Sunnah and bring people round to his warped way of thinking. There are serious questions over his motivations. So it’s important that TSD provides a scholarly and academic response.
I am questioning AL’s intentions here but I’m willing to concede that I can’t open up his heart to look inside. Only Allah knows. And we ask that Allah guides both us and him.
@@azadajk7128 actually that was his point. Mufti said bukhari was a great man and alum & he said we absolutely should take from and use bukhari, but the divine status it gets sometimes should be questioned.
de Nobody (serious) has ever said it is 100% authentic or that Imam Bukhari is infallible or that he has never made mistakes. The whole purpose of scrutinising the work and providing a commentary on it is, at least in part, to check its veracity and authenticity. Many great scholars of the past have engaged in this activity.
My point has more to do with AL’s pattern of behaviour. It appears to me that he is deliberately and purposefully looking to attack the Sunnah and the traditional scholarship concerning it. Like I said, I cannot look inside his heart but his aims also seem sinister. The fact that he seems to go out of his way to court controversy doesn’t help his case either. AL has also had connections with the Quilliam Foundation, which he apparently denounced very quickly - allegedly once he became aware of what they actually stood for.
At the same time however, some of his speech touches dangerously close to the “reformist” views in the West (whilst I accept that he hasn’t actually “gone there” explicitly, as far as I am aware - he did say that “we need an Islam that emanates from the West” or words to that effect). Incidentally, this is the kind of garbage that flows from the mouths of the founders of the Quilliam Foundation.
At every opportunity, he appears to be looking to appeal to people’s whims and desires rather than the affirming the Sunnah.
He goes out of his way to mock senior scholars and other Da’ees but tries to simultaneously claim that he has nothing but respect for these people.
I’m nobody special and to my untrained mind, he looks to be deliberately preying on those with a weak imaan and trying to sow doubts and/or to mislead people.
All in all, given there are so many issues with what he says, it would seem he is best avoided.
With that said, I don’t think it’s right for people to attack him though - the best strategy is to allow brothers like TSD to methodically dismantle what he says in an academic way. The rest of us should not pay him any attention. He will eventually wither away, unless he reforms - for falsehood will always perish and the truth shall always prevail.
Allah knows best. May Allah guide us all to the truth.
urdominus You’ve not really bought anything new to the discussion. I already dealt with that point in my initial response. AL likes to use slippery language - say one thing, then go on to do or say lots of other things which raise questions over his true intention. At least to anyone with a skeptical or enquiring mind.
@@azadajk7128 ok thats ur opinion and that's cool. I was just affirming the original comments point.
"We can determine a persons reliability by examining whether his narrations are corroborated with other narrators".
So if a liar had the attribute of actually also narrating a lot of authentic ahadiith, you would deem him as reliable? Seems like a faulty method.
Furthermore this could actually just be exploited. A person with malicious intent could narrate narrations that he knew were sahih and that people considered sahih and that were in circulation to boost is rank in order to just make up ahadiith later on and make people accept them based upon his previous decievement of trying to appear reliable by what he corroborated.
What a weak methodology you subscribe to.
Really this is your way of trying to convince people that you can vouch for a persons reliability even though you are 200 years apart?
This is ridiculous.
First thing i thought too
Actually that's not how it works in reality. A liar wouldn't spend all his time in narrating sahih things just to narrate few hadiths that have no political or ideological interests. Let me give an example. Abu huraira narrated more than 400 different reports. Only in 9 reports he is not corroborated. But those 9 reports have no political or ideological interests for Abu huraira. If a narrator who is corroborated reports some uncorroborated authentic reports which affect the fundamental theology of Islam, he is not corroborated. For example: if someone were to affirm shia imamah.
@@cowdyimammurrahtabari973 Listen, the whole hadith methodology is a subjective methodology that has lots of disagreement between different scholars of hadith.
Not only do they differ in which specific ahadiith they consider sahih or not, but they also differ in the methodology they feel like is better to use.
This is a highly questionable practice given the weight and importance you give to things you find in these ahadiiths.
This tradition is a joke.
@@AbuDurum There are disputes. But the agreement overwhelm the disputes. If hadiths aren't reliable, what religious information is reliable and which religion is reliable? I don't know if you're a muslim, Christian or aitheist, but I am going to mention some religions.
NT has nine authors. James and Jude don't give us any relevant information. Luke depends on mark. Both Paul and Mark depends on peter. The Christians themselves are skeptical about the attribution of Matthew and Matthew also depends on mark. In other words, there are only two real authors. John and Peter. And we only know about the life of James to some extent other than them and he died before any book was written. As for other disciples, we don't even know their death year and place. That's how ignored they were. Meaning we don't know if they opposed peter or john. We can't even know if they came to know about their beliefs. There are other problem but this problem is enough bad.
As for OT books, we have to rely upon rabbies who came many centuries later about the attribution and compilation and they didn't give any information about their sources. In other words, they didn't give any chains.
We have to depend upon people and their chains for Quran. One can argue the Quran is an invention by uthman or other caliphs using your logic.
If you're an aitheist, there's no point for you to waste time in these matters since you don't believe in God and heaven and hell. Go and rape a girl. You don't have any moral standards if you're an aitheist.
There are many hadiths books and each give different chains and various chains. Some chains of one book match the chains of another book and most other chains match the chains of the rest of the books and some are exclusive to one book. So you have multiple different authors gaining their information from multiple different sources through multiple different paths. It would be unreasonable to think all of them are unreliable. If you doubt the authors, they are many. If you doubt their teachers, they are even more. If you doubt the teachers of their teachers and the companions of the prophet, they are also many. Which generation do you doubt? Which one do you think conspired? I would rather take the apparent approach and say they are reliable. And I mentioned why Abu huraira shouldn't be considered a forger. Other narrators from the companions and later ones are similar.
@@AbuDurum you are the actual joke here
I'm trying to understand something.
I am not a fan of alot of Abu layths views but if he is a deviant that can be destroyed in two minutes or less.
Why are all the salafis running away.
Sunni defence nice job on the video but Abu layth has challenged you to go face to face with him and to all who are against him.
So why dont you go to him.
You can give an excuse that he is such a deviant that he's not a bother. But you were willing to make several videos against him. You were willing to edit short clips from him q and a sessions and refute him.
You were willing to challenge the shia rafidi channel, you were willing to challenge tawhidi etc.
So if Abu layth is this monumental deviants who lies and changes text and has no knowledge on islam, then why dont you go to him and prove him wrong.
I have seen your videos against him and his responses and objectively speakijng he seems to have demonated you guys, minus this video, where I feel you have now got the upper hand.
I've watched you guys lie throughout this series against him aswell. At first I believed you guys but by doing some research it was very obvious that you were lying, e.g you said malm didn't know that suliaman al a mash and a mash was the same person where doing a little research he actually said sulaiman al a mash the week prior and the video against him was the clip the following week where he had a slip of a toung.
Maybe malm deserves to be slandered because he insults people imams and his fellow Muslims so badly, so I'm willing to turn a blind eye to you guys for doing that.
So to end this, slander of one another, please can you both farid and Sunni defence got to malm and prove him wrong or be proved wrong. Because I was a fan of you guys but now it come to a point where my iman has sanked to the floor because m seeing a channel which a liked stoop so low.
Naeem Khan Lets be honest if you weren’t a fan you wouldn’t watch videos exposing him and make multiple comments claiming that these brothers are hiding from debating him and not even make one comment regarding the content mentioned in such videos
@@Umar-kg1zb Brilliantly put, and you have just hit the final nail on his head.🤭
@@Umar-kg1zb look a fan or not but why when abu layth invite him for debate he doesn't go. They only mentioned about some hadith. Please watch the both sides.
I'm an atheist. watched the whole video. Thanks for the clarification.
🚩🚩
i invite you to islam to join the believers and gain salvation in the hereafter
Why?
Thanks for putting together this excellent, and easy to understand summary. Although less than 30 minutes, it packs in a lot of information and analysis.
Ma sha Allah. Tabaarak Allah. Excellent intro Brother. Excellent exposé as well!
Now thats strawman fallacy.
Mufti does not say that throw the whole Bukhari. He questioned the idea that Bukhari is the most authentic book after Quran and with all these justifications, the question still remains... Is Bukhari that much reliable as these guys want to project.
And no, you cannot compare mistakes in Bukhari manuscripts with mistakes in Quranic manuscripts for the simple reason that there has always been a culture of memorization of Quran..
there has been memorization of the hadiths too lmao, how do you think they even spread?
What I can't understand is that why did Allah had to send so many prophet's at different times with the same message again and again?
Was it not because after the prophet passed, the message got diluted and eventually distorted by those who are against the rule of Allah?
Until we get to Muhammad s.a.w who brought the Qur'an and which is preserved for all time and for all people as explicitly stated by Allah himself.
Why then do we take hadith books beside Qur'an and defend it with the same veracity as the Qur'an when history itself shows that the message was not preserved, due to the comings of prophet's again and again(from Adam as until Muhammad s.a.w) with the haq?
Allah knows best but due to this very matter I find it hard to take hadith books at face value and find it hard to believe in them especially the controversial narrations that are in them.
Anyone who can enlighten me so as to better understand and be on haq regarding this issue?
Jajak Allah Khair.
@Khalid Naveed if you can't understand the need to (understand) IT, then there's no use us taking this conversation forward.
Good day
here are some verses about obeying the prophet Muhammad (may peace be upon him), so you cannot absolutely deny that we are commanded to obey him
1)
"Say Obey Allah and the Messenger. But if they turn away, then Allah does not like the disbelievers" [Quran 3:32]
2)
"And whoso obey Allah and the Messenger (Muhammad) then they will be in the company of those on whom Allah has bestowed His Grace, of the Prophets, the Siddiqun (those followers of the Prophets who were first and foremost to believe in them, like Abu Bakr As-Siddiq the martyrs, and the righteous. And how excellent these companions are!" [Quran 4:69]
3)
"They ask you (O Muhammad)about the spoils of war. Say: “The spoils are for Allah and the Messenger.” So fear Allah and adjust all matters of difference among you, and obey Allah and His Messenger (Muhammad), if you are believers" [Quran 8:1]
4)
"O you who believe! Obey Allah and His Messenger, and turn not away from him (i.e. Messenger Muhammad) while you are hearing" [Quran 8:20]
5)
"The believers, men and women, are Auliya’ (helpers, supporters, friends, protectors) of one another; they enjoin (on the people) Al-Ma’ruf (i.e. Islamic Monotheism and all that Islam orders one to do), and forbid (people) from Al-Munkar (i.e. polytheism and disbelief of all kinds, and all that Islam has forbidden); they perform As-Salat (Iqamat-as-Salat), and give the Zakat, and obey Allah and His Messenger. Allah will have His Mercy on them. Surely Allah is All-Mighty, All-Wise"[Quran 9:71]
6)
"He who obeys the Messenger has indeed obeyed Allah, but he who turns away, then we have not sent you as a watcher over them" [Quran 4:80]
so at this point, the fact that we (muslims) are commanded to obey the messenger (may peace be upon him) is pretty much heavily established in the quran.
why would the quran tell us multiple times that we need to obey him (may peace be upon him)?
how would we (the ummah) obey him (may peace be upon him)?
in order to obey him (may peace be upon him), we would need to know his teachings in the first place, wouldn't we? so that leads us to the hadith, the actions and sayings of the prophet Muhammad (may peace be upon him).
now, my issue with people who only read from the quran and not the hadith is the following verse:
"O you who believe! Obey Allah and obey the Messenger (Muhammad, pbuh), and those of you (Muslims) who are in authority. (And) if you differ in anything amongst yourselves, refer it to Allah and His Messenger if you believe in Allah and in the Last Day. That is better and more suitable for final determination" [Quran 4:59]
this verse tells us clearly that we refer to Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَتَعَالَىٰ) and the prophet Muhammad (may peace be upon him) when we differ amongst ourselves.
how do we refer to Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَتَعَالَىٰ)? we use the quran
how do we refer to the prophet Muhammad (may peace be upon him)? through his teachings. and let me emphasise again, his teachings is in the Hadiths
this verse also points out that we can't just freely determine what each verse means just like that. we need to understand the verses. and so, wouldn't it make sense to refer to both the quran and hadith seeing the prophet Muhammad (may peace be upon him) is the prophet who preached these verses to us? if we ONLY used quran, we wouldn't be referring to the prophet Muhammad (may peace be upon him) at all for any of the verses, and would end up freely interpreting the verses. how do you expect do understand the context of the verses without the hadith in the first place?
to top all this up, the quran says that the prophet Muhammad (may peace be upon him) preaches to us what is halal and haram in this verse:
"Those who follow the Messenger, the unlettered prophet, whom they find written in what they have of the Torah and the Gospel, who enjoins upon them what is right and forbids them what is wrong and makes lawful for them the good things and prohibits for them the evil and relieves them of their burden and the shackles which were upon them. So they who have believed in him, honored him, supported him and followed the light which was sent down with him - it is those who will be the successful" [Quran 7:157]
how do you know what the prophet Muhammad (may peace be upon him) has revealed what is haram and halal? through his teachings.
to further prove that the prophet Muhammad (may peace be upon him) was sent to explain the quran is in these verses:
"With clear signs and Books (We sent the Messengers). And We have also sent down unto you (O Muhammad SAW) the reminder and the advice (the Quran), that you may explain clearly to men what is sent down to them, and that they may give thought" [Quran 16:44]
what do you think this verse means when it says "explain clearly to men what is sent down to them, and that they may give thought"???? it can't get anymore clear than this.
furthermore:
"And We have not sent down the Book (the Quran) to you (O Muhammad SAW), except that you may explain clearly unto them those things in which they differ, and (as) a guidance and a mercy for a folk who believe" [Quran 16:64]
so this leads me to a question:
WHERE do you expect to see the teachings of the prophet Muhammad (may peace be upon him)???
the quran is the word of ALLAH (سُبْحَانَهُ وَتَعَالَىٰ), and the hadith is the actions and sayings of the PROPHET MUHAMMAD (may peace be upon him)!!!
fr ask urself, if we don't need to know the teachings of the prophet Muhammad (may peace be upon him), then why didn't Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَتَعَالَىٰ) just give the whole quran to those arabs and tell them that's all they need to understand the quran? why was the quran revealed over 23 years, with the prophet Muhammad (may peace be upon him) explaining it???
The issues raised, definitely raise doubts about hadith preservation methods and whether it can ever result in "certainty".
Finished watching the video. Can you please make another video with some more examples. It was so heart warming seeing how every mistake can be detected
✨Eidkum MUbarak عيدكم مبارك ✨
Kair mubarek
The argument is incorrect.... because no one ever claimed that the bukhari we have today is completely unreliable......What mufti claimed is that there are errors in the book so we need to treat bukhari just like other books of ahadith......
And mufti covered it in much more detail...and the edition you are mentioning it has 1200 ahadith only....which is not even close to the bukhari we have today ...so it proves no point nor does it support your theory anyway.....
If you have watched Mufti's video about the #bukharigate and you are saying all this after watching that, then you have lost honour in my eyes because of manipulating and fabricating things and if you have not watched them yet, then you are just humiliating yourself....
And next time while making a video like this, introduce yourself and mention your credentials, in the videos that are out of context for the common people, that will take you farther in life.
Look they didn't watch mufti and misinterpret on accident. It was done intentionally to validate their despise for mufti.
Even their point about fraberi, they saying "see it wasn't 200 years before someone couches for him, it's actually just over 100" lol. Mufti's whole point was no one that met this guy vouched for him.
What about the 90,000 person claim from fraberi??
مشكور يالغالي ..!!! و كل عام و انتم بخير ❤️
هلا بالحبيب
تارك التويتر شي؟ ما عاد نشوفك عليه
Watched it 😌 very informative MashaAllah
This is the poorest reply I've ever seen, you guys embarrassed yourselves with this. but the main Question is that WHY are you people defending the entire Bukhari altogether, no-one says to throw the entire Bukhari into the dustbin, but rather revise it check the problematic ahadeeths in it and there is many. on the other hand Bukhari does contain some Sahih Ahadeeth, and needs to be followed. you say Quran contained errors just so you can make an argument for your case (18:30), you guys are hard to understand you make Islam difficult and many people distance themselves from their deen because of people like you.
They didn't say the Quran contained errors, he said their will be textual mistakes because humans are writing it. But that doesn't mean that the Quran is unreliable. We know the Quran is reliable because Allah said so and we have so many Quran to look at to know that the scribe messed up.
@@mumbles_5 Quran is memorised so the arguments falls apart. Hadith transmissions can be tampered with.
Couldn’t agree more with this statement. They try to compare Quran and Hadith all the time when Quran and Hadith are two completely different things. One is divine revelation and the other are a bunch of fabricator stories. Yes there are some authentic Hadith but these people will never question the fabricated ones.
@@lap19 what is my argument? I was trying to help the brother here understand that they didn’t say the Quran had mistakes, it just has scribal errors in that are accounted for when people memorize and when they compare it to the millions of other copies. People memorize Hadith chains as well too. It’s not as prevalent, but how else do you think we got these compilations of Hadith like the sahihtayn and the muwatta and so on?
This video is extremely fallacious. You guys are arguing against a strawman when you say that we shouldn't reject Bukhari entirely. MAL never said that. You also didn't even address all of MAL's points or actually proved that Farabri is reliable and has been vouched for by someone who actually knew him. What a disappointment.
Eid Mubarak ya ikhwa!!! As always w great plasure I watched this vid' and any work thats presented by the team, I watch, I Feel's the sincerity, so long's the audio's of decent quality, I'm in, i@ Maqbul
Bukhari is man made and not from Allah. To say this book is 100% authentic is ridiculous. It has potential for mistakes like any other religious book except for Quran which is divine revelation.
Salafis are obligated to accept every Hadith from Bukhari without exception. This commitment stems from their departure from established Madhabs, opting instead to reinterpret Fiqh based on Bukhari's teachings. Any rejection of even a single Hadith from Bukhara undermines their entire ideology.
All Sunnis accept Sahih al Bukhari, not just Salafis
@@karimmezghiche9921 But only Salafi’s take fiqh from Bukhari the other madhabs don’t do that. They were established before Bukhari was compiled. For example Hanafi’s don’t do Rafal Yadain even though there’s a Hadith in Bukhari reporting the Prophet performed it.
@@Flyingtoohardtofly
This is false, all schools take into consideration Sahih Al-Bukhari, just because the schools were founded before the book was made doesn't mean that the hadiths that are in it did not exist before.
Al-Bukhari did not make up the hadiths in his Sahih from his mind you know, they were widely known even before his time.
He just compiled them.
Yes the Hanafis do not raise their hands, but that is not because they reject the hadiths that are in Sahih Al-Bukhari.
It is because they consider them to have been abrogated, but they still accept the hadiths as authentic.
All Sunnis without exception accept all hadiths in Sahih Al-Bukhari.
The analogy of editions to authors and their editions is absolutely false in my honest opinion. Editions are generally written by the same author and thats authentic. If there are different editions of lets say aristotle by someone who lived centuries after him are completely problematic and has to be seriously reviewed and checked with the original. Bad analogy.
The Analogy is Not False , Al Farabari Recieved HIS Edition For Al Bukhari RahimuAllah.
Hi
I do not reject hadith but watching this video and i found it to be very very weak. Your admitting the ALL of sahih bukhari goes through just one man, farabri. WOW.
I have looked into this and I am shocked that if you go to any scholar today and ask him his chain of sahih bukhari ALL go back through one man farabri. The question is why the the scholars all around the world chain goes back through one man farabri?
Your telling me that there is no other chain in existence that does NOT go through farabri ?
We have to stop saying the most authentic man made preservation in the world.
Love and peace to you all!
ALI Hussain and yeah he should believe in shia hadith books
@@maryammuslimah7660
You think Shia hadith books are 100% authentic?
Your saying there are NO mistakes and contradictions in Shia hadith books?
Love and peace to you all!
@@ALIHussain-mf4ez No. Only the books today go back to Farabi. In earlier times, there were other books which didn't go through Farabi. The reason very book today goes through Farabi is because that's how it works.
In light of this video being about hadith transmission, the name and a brief biography of the presenter should be included in the video's description.
I have watched this full vid. Is there any continuation?
What's the speakers name?
قال عنه أبو سعد السمعاني في أماليه :" كان ثقة ورعا ".
Jazakumullah khaiyran Jaza and I did finished watching the video, thanks for the lending contributions. I have few questions: 1. In some narration of Sahih al-Bukhari, we read expression like " قال لی " meaning 'person so and so said to me' as opposed to the use of "حدثنا " meaning 'narrated to us'. What is the intent of making this distinction? Does this imply that there are certain collections that meets the criteria of authenticity of these works and there are some which does not? If this is the position, who set these criteria, Bukhari himself or the transmitters themselves? How then could categorically state that everything is authentic when we find such distinction in the collections?
2. What do make of the Hadith in which Abu Bakra is one of the narrator, with the Hadith saying something about women leadership? What about the Hadith that says women are among of the three things that brings a bad omen?
1)Both are sahih.
2)a)The Quran said men are qawwam over women.
b)Women are "bad omen" in the sense that there is a good chance they will lead to fitnah because of sexual attraction from the men side.
Note : There is no real bad omen. But there is "bad omen" with quotation marks.
@Brother Anon
You're wrong. Men being Qawwamoon does not make women less equal. It espouses upon the responsibilities vested on the shoulders of men when it comes to the family. Men are privileged by Allah as head of the household because they have been specifically molded by the Maker to shoulder such responsibilities. The verse on financial documentation of a debt is poorly understood by you: the verse in question relates the heavy responsibility of testifying to a loan contract by an individual and not in a competent court. Such heavy responsibility is not suited for the nature of women. It is by no means an indication that her status is lower to than of man. Ibn Taimiyah and Ibn Qayyim shared the same view (Turuq-ul-Hukmiyya fi Siyasati-s-Shari'eyah). Having said that do you still maintain the same position that it is the so-called "modern day ideologies" that may have influenced the two Sheikh's for maintaining that based on the Surah 2:283 and the hadith that is poorly understood, not minding the chains of transmission, that those Nas does not in anyway substantiate the idea that women's status are less compared to men?
I just want to say THANK YOU FOR ALL YOUR WORK BROTHERS! Thank you for standing up and refuting MALM.
Excellent information..mm May Allah bless u with abundance with health and success in this world and hereafter
So are they relaying what bukhari said? And did this happen like 300 yrs after the prophet peace be upon him
If you want to refute Mufti Abu Layth, he challenges you, go destroy him with your knowledge. Respect.
Just to add... you guys shd really watch MAL'S hour long video
He shows how all these claims you're making of Ibn Sakan/Baaji/Samani etc.
MAL actually shows pages and references explainig all these to be problematic.
MAL also shows theres no reference of Baji in his own works and this is quoted by any major scholar.
MAL also shows that Samanis book doesnt seem to have Farabri in it.
MAL also shows Samanis sons book in his video speaking abt Farabri and how there is no tautheeq of him.
the secondary book that u state Ifadah MAL shows in his video how he is misrepresenting facts he shows him misleading people abt Farabri having Bukharis actual handwritten book.
MAL also mentions the manuscript differences aint just small names but entire chains disagreeing and even missing.
MAL also mentions that Jiyani's manuscript had poor handwriting? He also mentions that his student Sadaah has a different version from Jiyani??
Once again Please RESPOND to MAL'S actual video.
Otherwise anybody watching this then watching MAL'S video will clearly see that his points are much stronger.
We did not respond to all of Abu Layth's points. Some are just absurd. For example, Abu Layth himself often quotes opinions from scholars that cannot be found in their works. So, this is a double standard.
Furthermore, Al-Jayyani had manuscripts of Al-Bukhari through Ibn Al-Sakan, Al-Aseeli, Al-Qabsi, Abu Thar, Al-Nasafi, and others. Did they ALL have bad handwriting?
Please stop accepting his statements without evidences. This man has openly lied to his audience on several occasions.
This video simply refutes the main accusations that were made. Refer to the description above.
The Sunni Defense just debate him already since he’s a deviant
@@SunnahDiscourse But why don't you debate him? Especially when you say he is a clear deviant in the fundamentals?
you sound like his daughter, poor kid
@@josefineforsberg5807 please then why these guys are don't debate with him
However, Sahih Al-Bukhari is highly consistent with the Quran and the standard Islamic narrative - agreed? (LOL)
Mufti Abu Ganesh said to Ali Dawah that in the afterlife he will see his false g-d Ganesh.
Edit: Just finished watching
MrAlio84 Mad, when was this?
@@AHK4680
Here at 0:50 according to Ali Dawah.
th-cam.com/video/-PAwOohW-X8/w-d-xo.html
Subhan'Allah, may Allah guide him.
This is classic example of he said/she said. I watched Mufti's video and he said that Ali Dawah was unprepared for their debate and was afraid of recording their debate and asked him to not record. Mufti has a sense of humor and he has a tendency of making jokes. There is nothing wrong with humor. Many Sahaba had a sense of humor too. If only you learn your history....
You don't joke about things which are a part of Imaan, there's nothing wrong with a sense of humour.
Mashallah
He probably read the haidth and it was completely against him so instead of accepting he was wrong and repenting he now attacks the hadeth
@The Sunni Defense
Please can you cut Bro Farid addressing the issue of AL in last week’s live chat/stream from approximately 1h06 so there is a small clip just on that point.
MashaAllah excellent video, the opponents are clearly burning in rage. They have nothing left expect making foolish and unacademic arguments out of arrogance. It’s hard for them to accept that their arguments were destroyed in an academic manner.
They have not answered Abu Layth at all ... you wouldn't accept such an answer defending the Bible so why accept it defending another book?
eatingeatingeating Firstly stop acting like an idiot by comparing bible which allegedly is a divinely revealed book by God with a hadeeth book.
Secondly, it seems you aren’t aware that abulayth when started off with attacking some ahadeeth from Bukhari, tsn have a jawbreaking response proving him to be a zindeeq. When MAL realized his stupidity , he realized that Sunni scholars have already replied to all the shubuhat raised by hadeeth rejectors which they use from Bukhari, hence to save himself from humiliation MAL thought to go next level, and attacked the attribution of Sahih Bukhari which we have to imam Bukhari. But unfortunately he was made to taste the dust even in this issue.
Geat video, Fareed and Abdullah
سير أعلام النبلاء لشمس الدين الذهبي » الطبقة الثامنة عشر » الفربري
المحدث الثقة العالم أبو عبد الله محمد بن يوسف بن مطر بن صالح بن بشر الفربري ، راوي " الجامع الصحيح " عن أبي عبد الله البخاري ، سمعه منه بفربر مرتين .
...............
أرخ مولده أبو بكر السمعاني في " أماليه " وقال : كان ثقة ورعا.
Biography of the nobles
Al-Muhaddith the trustworthy, the scholar Abu Abdullah Muhammad bin Yusuf bin Matar bin Saleh bin Beshr al-Farbari, narrator of al-Jamaâ al-Saheeh from Abu Abdullah al-Bukhari, which
he Hear it from him twice at Farbar.
................................
Abu Bakr al-Sama'ani, date his birth in in his "Amali", and said: He was trustworthy and devout.
why do not you debate?
finished watching
Oh i see. So everyone who questions any kind of authenticity of any kithab alhadith is a dajjal or a zindheek. Awesome. Never ever expected this kind of typical Christian type of negation and damning of people as argument. Sad to see learned Muslims like you brothers have gone to that level of the lowest gutter. When i started watching this video i thought you guys were decent people. I have seen you as well. I dont know who you are addressing and your textual criticism is kind of good. Its good to know you are using some kind of critical method to texts. But its not so nice to see your damning of other people, whoever they are. In the future, if i see your faces ever again i will listen but will only do so knowing how vile you guys really are inside. Alaikumussalaam.
What an ignorant comment. Abu Layth is a evildoer for numerous reasons. He has misguided countless people with invalid fatawa. There is consensus on certain things that are Haram and he tells his followers they are permissible. There’s literally a whole compilation of this buffoon going against Islam. He’s just another progressive fake imam
Jazakallahu khaira
Do you follow hadith or Koran?
What about the specific ahadith which abu layth brings such as angels cursing women who say no to sex to thier husbands etc
May Allah swt reward you brothers
Watched the whole video. Duuno if it’s of use now :)... baarakallah o feekum
Saw the complete video!
For AL and his ilk who keep referring to TSD as “Salafi Defense” (how original 😂... and incidentally the same little dig that the Shi’a try to have at TSD)...
Here is Imam Nāsir ud-Dīn Al-Albani, a Sheikh pretty much universally accepted by so-called “Salafis” discussing weak Hadith in Bukhari:
th-cam.com/video/w46-M1XqsUQ/w-d-xo.html
Nobody at TSD to the best of my knowledge (or any Sunni of knowledge for that matter) has ever claimed Bukhari to be infallible or divine revelation. This is just a weak straw man argument advanced by the likes of AL to support their unfounded attacks on the Sunnah.
The clip from Imam Al Albani proves that it is possible to have a reasoned and rational critique of Bukhari in accordance with the accepted principles of Ahlus Sunnah.
It does not support AL’s mockery of the religion or his unfounded attacks on Bukhari to support his warped reformist views, that appear to be grounded in modern western liberal thinking rather than Al Islam.
U don't have guts to debate mufti layth,
Jazakallah khair!
Imam al Dhahabi said al Farabri was thiqah
You guys should o face to face malm.
So people can be guided
Naeem Khan Lol Mufti Abu layth would destroy them
Salaam
You have agreed with MUFTI ABU LAYTH why?
Wy did the sahaba didn't do hadith? After 100 years they began righting hadith?
Because it is easier to teach more people via mouth instead of writing 100 books and giving each of their student one.
They used to write hadith, some used to memorize hadith and some used to write in their personal copies and they used to share it with their relatives like we have the Abdullah bin Amr bin Al-As'. We still have those manuscripts alongside we have the same ahadith with longer isanid (chain of narrations) which are found in later books like Kutub As-Sittah (6 books of ahadith) and others. So the argument itself is dosen't make any sense. Hence, the argument is proven to be incorrect.
Allahu A'alam!
You make Islam very difficult while its very easy explained in the Koran.
How many rakats in maghrib according to Quran?
@@cowdyimammurrahtabari973 the prophet showed and explained it, and people are still praying the same way our beloved prophet used to pray.
@@mistercach I asked where is it in the Quran. The main argument for Quran only Muslims is that we only need Quran and nothing else. But if you're going to rely on others for prayer, what argument do you have as a hadith rejector?
@@cowdyimammurrahtabari973 who said i was a hadith rejector? A lot of hadith make no sense and its pushing people away from Allah and Islam it used to be the other way around. The hadith has brought division in and weakness in islam that's wy the non believers rule over our religion all muslims are my brothers and sisters Sunni shia etc... we began as 1 and ended in 70 parts battling each other this is not wat our prophet intended you see the picture now maybe for you are the hadith more important than the Koran but for me its the Koran that is more important im always sceptical about hadith but not all of them.
@@mistercach Just because you don't like hadith does not make them false. "A lot of hadith make no sense" which ones?
Salaam
Why are you sunni defence scared of have a debate with mufti abu layth?
The only reason I can think of is that you will get exposed and doing this is easier for you.
a wise man told said dont argue with fool, because people from a distance cant tell who is who
@@josefineforsberg5807 stupid comment. If he’s such a fool then why even make a refutation? He’s clearly a threat to these guys and talks sense. Debate the guy if you think he’s a fool
farid challenged him and abu layth ran away from a face to face debate, it's funny because you commented this around when it happened
@@josefineforsberg5807 He alwyas debates fool yet he is scared to debate abu layth
@@superhydra8873 -_- stop lying without evidence
As salaam alaikum just finish watching this video
Abu layth looks like a hidu with a stick on beard
Done. Appreciate your efforts. Jazakallahu Khayran.
They have not answered Abu Layth at all ... you wouldn't accept such an answer defending the Bible so why accept it defending another book?
@@eatingeatingeating
What did he say that they didn't answer?
Hi Jesus .... what? Mufti Abu Layth has not attacked all hadith but has asked for the evidence to show how the Sahih Bukhari collection goes back to Sahih Bukhari. There is nothing deviant about this question and only a deviant group will take offence in such a question.
I THINK THIS LAYTH BLOKE ON DRUGS
Finished watching it.. new stuff for me
Finished watching it 👍👍👍
Great work
finished
Just finished.
Watched it MashaAllah
They have not answered Abu Layth at all ... you wouldn't accept such an answer defending the Bible so why accept it defending another book?
Finished watching the vid
i have finished watching the video
Long Live Mufti Abu Layth ❤
18:02 Farid
Finished watching....
Finished watching
Watched it. Liked it. Blast it
Finito 👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻
MashaAllah
finished watching